Normandy Map Discussion

[firmek]

Should?

It does work with 1.5 and 2.0 - link

[QuiGon]

It does work with 1.5 and 2.0 - link

 

Yeah, mwd2 pointed that out to me already ;)

[stefano]

Map is looking very nice.

 

Mechanized Infantry was quite important in WWII. Will we be able to embark and disembark infantry from trucks, jeeps, trains and ships? That will give the players a better reason to interdict convois and trains or prevent an sea invasion.

 

Will the trees and orchards be collidable and do they provide cover or screening from AI ground units? This would make the map a dream map for helicopter pilots.

 

+1

 

 

thx.

[klem]

Will there be any concessions for purchasing maps to use exclusively on servers? With the release of more and more maps, it will become prohibitively costly to continue to support DCS World in all it's theatres.

 

A version of DCS World that prevents the installation of any modules except campaigns asset packs and maps would ensure the terms of a server license couldn't be broken perhaps?

 

 

This is a very good question. Many if us run part time servers for our friends on a separate PC. I have the free 1.5 Caucuses map on both but don't expect to have to buy Normandy for both. Or NTTR. Perhaps this ties in with a dedicated server version that does not allow the installation of Aircraft/Ground Vehicle etc Modules as suggested by NeilWillis

 

( repeat of the post in the livestream thread but I think this is more appropriate place)

[steve1977]

preordered :)

[tobalt]

I was thinking, maybe is good form to add in the WWII Backer section of the profile- beside the Normandy map line also the models?

 

 

There's the risk someone buys that twice.

 

Like me. I'm a Silver Backer, but I saw the WWII backers page only say Normandy Map, so I bought the Normandy Map+Units... FML.

[showtime817th]

This is a very good question. Many if us run part time servers for our friends on a separate PC. I have the free 1.5 Caucuses map on both but don't expect to have to buy Normandy for both. Or NTTR. Perhaps this ties in with a dedicated server version that does not allow the installation of Aircraft/Ground Vehicle etc Modules as suggested by NeilWillis

 

( repeat of the post in the livestream thread but I think this is more appropriate place)

 

Maybe you could get your friends to pitch in on the cost of the map for your buddy server.

[NeilWillis]

That's how we handle it, but it still leaves a number of altruistic providers of publicly available servers out of pocket doing something that enhances the DCS World environment.

 

It would hardly be a big deal for ED to investigate special server licensed copies of maps and other necessary hosting facilities. It's like every time you posy a party, the brewery charging you twice for your beer.

 

Of course, the alternative will be a complete lack of public server facilities. Perhaps a boycott might bring the problem front and centre, and make ED think more seriously about the problem?

[dannyq8]

That's how we handle it, but it still leaves a number of altruistic providers of publicly available servers out of pocket doing something that enhances the DCS World environment.

 

It would hardly be a big deal for ED to investigate special server licensed copies of maps and other necessary hosting facilities. It's like every time you posy a party, the brewery charging you twice for your beer.

 

Of course, the alternative will be a complete lack of public server facilities. Perhaps a boycott might bring the problem front and centre, and make ED think more seriously about the problem?

 

+1

 

With the release of more and more maps this issue will become more and more of a problem

[OnlyforDCS]

T

Of course, the alternative will be a complete lack of public server facilities. Perhaps a boycott might bring the problem front and centre, and make ED think more seriously about the problem?

 

Good luck with that idea :thumbup: Gamers are a whiny, but ultimately weak willed bunch for the most part, with very short term memories. As for simmers, I have seen no evidence to suggest that they would behave otherwise. I too feel that things could maybe be handled a bit differently, but for better or for worse, we are at the complete mercy of Eagle Dynamics and have to play by their rules and according to their wishes.

[BIGNEWY]

That's how we handle it, but it still leaves a number of altruistic providers of publicly available servers out of pocket doing something that enhances the DCS World environment.

 

It would hardly be a big deal for ED to investigate special server licensed copies of maps and other necessary hosting facilities. It's like every time you posy a party, the brewery charging you twice for your beer.

 

Of course, the alternative will be a complete lack of public server facilities. Perhaps a boycott might bring the problem front and centre, and make ED think more seriously about the problem?

 

 

ED have thought seriously about the issue and decided this is the best option.

 

We hear you and understand where your concerns are coming from. Please understand though that if a player wants to join a mission, they must have the non-aircraft module(s) used in that mission (SP or MP). If they do not, they will be informed what they are missing and ideally a link to the download page. It is up to the player to purchase the module or not. We can only give so much away for free.

 

Because DCS World is a freeware product with modules/DLC as the sole source of revenue (which must be compensated for), this is the only practical option. This is particularly important as the product grows and more and more non-aircraft DCS modules are developed by 3rd parties that need to be separate purchases. This goes for any large development product with large manpower investments. It will be up to the players to decide what they do and do not purchase, how they wish to set up their missions, or which to join.

 

While we do realise that this is not a great solution (free low detail models, free client-only assets, and subscriptions pose greater problems and are not viable) for some, it is though the best solution.

 

Thanks

 

 

As for dedicated servers, it is on ED's to do list, it all takes time and other features of DCS need to be completed first, and you would need to have that in place before you even considered a different approach to hosting new terrain, although I am still not convinced another way would be better.

 

Boycotting is only going to hurt ED and ourselves considering an alternative is not even currently possible.

 

Personally I will be to busy enjoying myself flying around the new terrain :)

[NineLine]

 

Of course, the alternative will be a complete lack of public server facilities. Perhaps a boycott might bring the problem front and centre, and make ED think more seriously about the problem?

 

If the MP crowd is a very low percentage of DCS World customers as I have heard, I dont think your boycott plan would work that well. Also, this isnt the place to drum up support for such an idea. You guys can vote with your money, if you dont like it, dont buy it, thats the way the world works.

 

Lets get the topic back on the map, as the thread is titled.

[cichlidfan]

Boycotting is only a useful tactic when you have enough participants to have an impact. In this case, you don't.

[dannyq8]

Oops I should have checked the quote when I +1 as I didn't intend to support a boycott attempt, if that is what it was, and I should realise by now on this forum that people focus on certain pieces of a post and not the entire post.

 

The fact still remains that the more maps that are released the more this will be a problem but if there are so few MP players in comparison to SP players, then maybe not.

[Pikey]

I've got a question/concern on the runway useability.

 

I can't find it right now but there was mention that the runways can only be used by certain, older jets. Unpaved runways/shorter runways coming into effect.

 

I need to know that the modules available can take off and land from these unpaved strips.

[ViFF]

As for dedicated servers, it is on ED's to do list, it all takes time and other features of DCS need to be completed first, and you would need to have that in place before you even considered a different approach to hosting new terrain, although I am still not convinced another way would be better.

 

I am confused now.

 

We (The Israeli community) have the 24/7 dedicated server "DCS ISRAEL" that is hosted in a data center.

 

The server's raison d'etre is for us to have a stable platform with a good cpu and good bandwidth to host online the missions the community designs so we can meet up online and all fly together, invite friends from other communities and have a good time overall.

 

In order to have the WW2 experience in Normandy, must we purchase both the map and the asset pack for the server?

 

S!

[NineLine]

I am confused now.

 

We (The Israeli community) have the 24/7 dedicated server "DCS ISRAEL" that is hosted in a data center.

 

The server's raison d'etre is for us to have a stable platform with a good cpu and good bandwidth to host online the missions the community designs so we can meet up online and all fly together, invite friends from other communities and have a good time overall.

 

In order to have the WW2 experience in Normandy, must we purchase both the map and the asset pack for the server?

 

S!

 

Correct.

[Devil 505]

Probably taking this out of context, but did anyone else notice the focus on a short tank battle scene at 1:19 in the trailer? I am probably reading into this to much but it appeared to hint they are focusing on ground combat more.

 

Has there been any news about combined arms with the asset pack? I thought I read somewhere on the forum here recently they were looking at possibly transitioning into ground modules. That was the vibe I got when I saw the tank battle.

[Medic8ed]

They have not specified which of the asset pack vehicles will be combined arms capable, but from what I have read it will be pretty much everything except the AI planes. So yes you will be able to have tank battles! But I wouldn't be expecting interiors or very detailed damage modeling/armor modeling. I think it will still be fun regardless though! If they ever started producing detailed tank modules with interiors, I wouldn't complain and would buy them in an instant, but they have no plans for that at this time.

[cichlidfan]

I am probably reading into this to much

 

^^^ This.

[NineLine]

Probably taking this out of context, but did anyone else notice the focus on a short tank battle scene at 1:19 in the trailer? I am probably reading into this to much but it appeared to hint they are focusing on ground combat more.

 

Has there been any news about combined arms with the asset pack? I thought I read somewhere on the forum here recently they were looking at possibly transitioning into ground modules. That was the vibe I got when I saw the tank battle.

 

Control via CA might not be available right away, but I believe its intended to be done like our current units. I am sure it would require having CA as well.

[Coxy_99]

Im hoping theres no FPS hit when 10 B-17's drop bombs on a city or built up area, Its ok having a nice new map +1 from me BUT i hope im wrong.

[Krupi]

10!? We should be seeing formations around a 100 or so strong!

[Coxy_99]

10!? We should be seeing formations around a 100 or so strong!

 

Yes but how them bombs going to affect fps, Explosions, Smoke and so, When you drop BK-90's it kills frames and lags :(

[NineLine]

Yes but how them bombs going to affect fps, Explosions, Smoke and so, When you drop BK-90's it kills frames and lags :(

 

That's the job of the effects guys, making good looking explosions that dont melt everyones GPU :)